CHPTER XVIII.

THE NORTH THE REAL REBELS.

It is now evident that we have arrived at a point in this discussion which justifies the above caption. The mere fact that the U. S. Government taught her own cadets in her own school, at West Point, the right of secessoin is sufficient evidence within itself, to establish this right beyond dispute. But especially is this true since the States, in framing the Constitution, reserved the right to themselves by not delegating it away in express terms. Especially, also, is this true when we consider Lincoln's testimony given in the Congress in 1848, remembering always that the nearer the witness is to the time of inauguration of the Constitution, as a general rule, the truer is he to that instrument. Especially, also, is this true when we consider the testimony of the Eleventh Amendment; that of the Declaration of Independence; that of the early Constitutions of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, to say nothing of the many other corroborating ordinances of the States of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, to which we shall refer in the next chapter, and in which these States expressly based their ratification of the Constitution on the condition that they could withdraw from the Union.

But as in all very important transactions between men in their private affairs, a multitude of facts are not out of order, so in this very important question as to the sovereignty of the States and their consequent right of secession, a multitude of facts will not be out of place. Hence from the mountain of telling facts, vindicating the South, we propose to select a few others, which also bear, on their face, truth and verity.

In the 4th Edition of the Republic of Republics-Little, Brown & Co.-are these words: "Another event of great historical interest, in which Judge Clifford participated, was a Solemn Consultation of a small number of the ablest lawyers of the North in Washington, a few months after the war, upon the momentous question as to whether the Federal Government should

commence a criminal prosecution against Jefferson Davis for the participation and the leadership in the war of Secession. In this council, which was surrounded at the time with the utmost secrecy, were Attorney-General Speed, Judge Clifford, Clifford, Wm. Evarts, and perhaps a half dozen others, who had been selected from the whole Northern profession for their legal ability and acumen, and the result of their deliberation was the sudden abandonment of the idea of a prosecution in view of the insurmountable difficulties in the way of getting a final conviction."

We have just referred to Rawle's "View or the Constitution” as a text-book at West Point, an unanswerable argument of the fact in behalf of the Right of Secession, as taught by the Government itself. We have, now, in this "Solemn Consultation" another view of the Constitution, known by the title of the "Solemn Consultation's Views." Rawle's view was that of one man, but adopted by the Government. The Solemn Consultation's View was that of an entire council, composed of the ablest lawyers in the North-lawyers selected from the whole legal profession of the North for their known ability and acumen. They were aided in this most solemn council by Attorney-General Speed, whose name is very significant in this connection; for the result of their deliberations was the Speedy abandonment of the idea of a prosecution in view of the insurmountable difficulties in the way of securing a final conviction.

What were these insurmountable difficulties? We are not told, and yet all men know, that it was no less than the Impassable Mountain of the American Constitution. Why was not such a solemn consultation invoked before the war?

Echo repeats the question, why

Yet brings back no other reply.

What a confession have we here? The Government had waged a most gigantic war against the South for the reason that Secession was unconstitutional and treasonable. Yet within a few months after the end of that mighty conflict, the most terrible and most destructive known to modern history; yea, before the smoke of battle had cleared away, this same Government had con

fessed that the war had been waged without constitutional authority. Who were the real rebels? Who were the real patriots? Davis was acquitted when that most Solemn Council had held that most Solemn Consultation, and had made its report to the officials of the Government. But he was not immediately released. On the contrary, he was imprisoned in the strongest fort in all North America. He was conducted thither with great pomp and display, his arm being in the firm grasp of a Federal General, who had a legion at his back. He was confined in a cell within a cell, only a few feet above the water line, and so dark as to require a lighted lamp day and night. Two sentinels were placed within that cell and paced to and fro day and night. He was proclaimed to the world as a felon, treated as a felon, fed as a felon, and shackeled as a felon. Yet, all this time he had been acquitted by that most Solemn Council in that most Solemn Consultation. Why all this? What does it mean? Was there no deception here? We pause on the very threshold of the answer, for the world had already given answer. Some future Shakespeare will dramatize this great wrong and deception in immortal verse. Some future Raphael will place it upon canvas in colors that will glow to the end of time. How was such an imposition passed off upon the American public? It was due to Ignorance and Passion. Passion was the power and ignorance of the Constitution was the tool. Men, well informed on other subjects, know little of the Constitution from personal study of that instrument. We have, in a previous chapter, shown that even a distinguished Major General makes this confession for himself and other West Point graduates, viz.: "It is not probable that any of us ever read the Constitution, or any exposition of it except in this of Rawle, which we studied in our graduating class at West Point." If a distinguished military officer, whose calling demanded more. or less intimate knowledge of the Constitution, does not read it, what is to be said of the great masses whose occupations do not require it? It is a most serious fact that this general and wide-spread ignorance of the Constitution is full of peril to our Republic. Wide-range ignorance of the fundamental law of

any Government, whatever be its nature, is most dangerous in the hands of unscrupulous ambition. But how much greater is the danger in a Republic like ours!

Charles Francis Adams, the distinguished citizen and historian of Massachusetts, whom we have already introduced to the readers of this volume, says, "When the Federal Constitution was framed and adopted, what was treason; to what or to whom, in case of final issue, did the average citizen owe allegiance? Was it to the Union or to his State? As a practical question seeing things as they then were-sweeping aside all incontrovertible legal arguments and metaphysical disquisitions-I do not think the answer admits of doubt. If put in 1788, or indeed at any time anterior to 1825, the immediate reply of nine men out of ten in the Northern States, and ninety-nine out of a hundred in the Southern States, would have been that as between the Union and the States, ultimate allegiance was due to the State." What a confession on which to justify the acts of Lincoln's Administration!

How was this stubborn fundamental fact overcome at the North? By false inference, by false constructions, and perversions of the Constitution. Truly has it been said: "It has not been the experience of mankind that words on parchment can arrest power."

Witness the perversion of the Constitution, and false inference and false construction in the following: "The Federal Constitution was theoretically and avowedly based on the idea of a divided sovereignty in utter disregard of the fact that sovereignty does not admit of division." Here is a misstatement of fact in strong language by no less a character than Charles Francis Adams. It is so stated as to be most effective on the minds of all whose prejudices incline in that direction. But the truth is that the Constitution was neither theoretically, nor avowedly based on any such idea as a divided sovereignty. The framers of the Constitution were thoroughly familiar with the nature of sovereignty. They knew that sovereignty could not be divided, and they did not attempt to divide it. If they did not attempt to divide it of course they did not avow it. If they did

avow it, let Mr. Adams point to the volume and the page containing the record of that avowal! We know of but one instance in which an authority has used the term, divided sovereignty, and that was not made by the framers of the Constitution, but by Judge Iredell, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he regarded it as in the sense of the divided powers of sovereignty. He made the two expressions identical. We quote from Judge Iredell's decision in the famous case of Alexander Chisolm vs. the State of Georgia, as follows: "Every State in the Union, in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, is considered to be as completely sovereign as the United States are in respect to the powers of the sovereignty surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers actually surrendered; each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved."

While Judge Iredell incautiously uses words in this quotation which may be briefly summed up to mean delegated or divided sovereignty, he at the same time makes clear his meaning by the expressions, "The powers of sovereignty surrendered," "all the powers of sovereignty" actually surrendered, and "all the powers of sovereignty actually reserved." All the defenders of the Great War are in an emergency. The Constitution is clearly against them. Necessity will catch at all stray words, and all unmeaning phrases, to keep afloat rather than go down in the sea of wrong.

It is not to be doubted that there was in the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the Constitution, a party that strongly advocated a consolidated Government wtih paramount authority over the Sovereign States. By this party a resolution was introduced in the Convention "to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the National Legislature, the Articles of the Union, or any treaties under the authority of the Union." With what success did this proposition meet? It was voted down by seven States against to three for it. Whereupon Martin Luther, a strong States-rights man, immediately introduced this resolution, the substance of which was incorporated in the Constitution: "That the legislative acts